request to ban food on trains

[whole diary]

[infoman]

Fair enough,but BP^» (Beyond Petroleum (Former name - British Petroleum) - home page) is still a Bristol boy and a Bristol City follower.

[TaplowGreen]

………...I'm a bit worried about Broadgage, I thought he'd be frothing at the mouth by now! 

[Bmblbzzz]

Bus drivers managed to enforce the smoking ban when that came in. If an eating ban had the force of law it should be a similar situation (and IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) smoking was banned on buses before the general public places legal ban).

[TonyK]

Bus drivers managed to enforce the smoking ban when that came in. If an eating ban had the force of law it should be a similar situation (and IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) smoking was banned on buses before the general public places legal ban).

The big difference is that everybody eats, far from everybody smokes, and no-one ever got sick through passive eating. Members of the public were prepared to challenge anyone lighting up, and it quickly ceased to be an issue. In my local village pub, by the way, there was a discussion days before the ban came into force, with a small number arguing that the police hadn't been seen in the village since one got lost in 1978, so we can just carry on. Then one asked the landlord, patiently listening, what his view was. In a nutshell, he would ban anyone who tried it. It's the law, his licence would be in jeopardy, which is the other side of Devon, and he hasn't liked cigarette smoke since he managed to kick the habit.

But food - I usually set off on a long train journey with a decent packed lunch and a couple of tinnies or a small bottle of something, but not on the bus. Maybe a polo or similar, but how many would I need to eat to fall foul of the law, I wonder?

This is the same Dame Sally, btw, who told us there was no safe dose of alcohol, prompting many to quit counting, and whose fatwah on red meat has recently been overturned by somebody who is paid more. She is missing the point anyway - scrap public transport on the assumption that everyone will walk, and we'll all be fit as butchers' dogs in no time.

Happy retirement, your Ladyship, good luck in the pantomime season, and don't tread on any mines. And greet broadgage for me if you see him...

[grahame]

BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) has posted some public reaction at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-49999054 ...including a picture of child on a train eating a banana ... which I rather thought might actually be good for him.

The urban is repeated:

She has suggested a number of measures to tackle the growing crisis, but the one that has sparked the most debate is her proposal to ban snacking on certain public transport.

There was a caveat to her proposal: "Prohibit eating and drinking on urban public transport, except fresh water, breastfeeding and for medical conditions."

Rosemary O'Connor, 61, from Aldersley in Wolverhampton, said: "I don't think they should ban eating on public transport.

"I get buses and coaches often and have a snack on them because it's the only time I have sometimes.

Tony Morgan, 55, who works in security at Wolverhampton railway station branded the plan "ridiculous".

"I don't think it would help stop kids being obese," he said.

"The main thing is that parents are busy now and so it's easier to pick up a takeaway."

A senior conductor with West Midlands Trains told BBC 5 live it was a "ridiculous idea" from a practical standpoint.

"I'm just wondering who this nannying nincompoop thinks is going to enforce this? Does she want us to strip search people before they get on the train, or seize the food off them when they start snacking?

"I get enough grief just asking somebody to take their feet off the seats, if I tried to take their food off them I'd have a riot on the train."

Fellow commuter Clive Freeman added: "I think people having hot, smelly foods on the train is more annoying for passengers than eating in general.

Clive, I love buying a curry at King's Cross and eating it on the train to Cambridge - would you deny me that? 

[broadgage]

………...I'm a bit worried about Broadgage, I thought he'd be frothing at the mouth by now! 

Only frothing slightly, since I doubt that this will ever happen, as has already been said who is going to enforce it?
GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) have however made a start.

At least two reports on line referred to the proposal to ban "smacking on public transport" to limit childhood obesity. Now how would that help ? smelling pistake perhaps 

[stuving]

BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) Wiltshire had a snippet on the news this morning where they spoke to a Swindon bus driver whose comments were along the lines of "a nice idea, but who is going to enforce it. No sensible bus driver is going to put themselves at risk by trying to enforce it".

Swindon buses' conditions don't mention food per se, though they go on about being messy and unpleasant as reasons for being thrown off. But that's unusual - some food is usually "banned" (down to the driver, of course). Examples:

First West of England: 

6 CONDUCT OF CUSTOMERS
6.1 When travelling on our vehicles, you are subject to these Conditions. Failure to comply with the Conditions (or the general law) may result in us refusing to permit you to travel or continue to travel. In particular, you must not:
...
(l) carry or consume any items of food or drink which in the opinion of the driver may make other Customers’ journeys unpleasant or otherwise cause offence, or which is likely to cause a spillage of any food or drink inside the vehicle;

Stagecoach:

3) Conduct of passengers

We reserve the right to refuse you entry, or require you to leave our buses or premises at any time, should we have reason to believe that your behaviour jeopardises the safety, security and comfort of others.

When travelling with us you must in particular:

• refrain from eating and drinking items which make the environment unpleasant for other customers or otherwise cause offence

I'd imagine that a blanket "no eating food of any kind" would be easier* to enforce than "don't eat what I say you can't".

* On second thoughts, not easier - I really meant simpler.

[TonyK]

Lest anyone think otherwise, I am not against prohibitions per se, I just don't see the sense very clearly. I was fully in support of the smoking ban, partly on the grounds of public health, long researched and established in science, partly because me and tobacco went our separate ways on 12 May 1991 and I don't like it any more, and partly because I could have a crafty pint on the way home and not come home smelling like I had been in the pub.

Like Rogerw, I read the conditions of carriage and wondered how the interpretation of the rules would work. "In the opinion of the driver" lays another weight on already burdened shoulders, and accusations of bias if, for example, you were refused permission to continue to eat your delicius and nourishing steak slice by a vegan.